Talk:Wizzro

Biography

Okay...why are the DLC scenarios kept separate? They are specifically presented as being part of the character's backstory, and inform the context of, and clarify the details of, Wizzro's actions in the main scenarios. For one, "Wizzro's whereabouts after Cia's defeat are unknown." is...a lie. We know it. He's sealed back in the ring.

In addition, why were the many corrections I had made to the primary story removed? Stuff like setting the Deku Tree on fire is even referenced in the Adventure Mode quizes as a "memory of the story's events".

Finally, why was it removed that Wizzro's sprite is identical to a blue Wizzrobe, and that he leads the Poes into battle?

I put a ton of work into sprucing up this article, and it feels like it was all thrown away without any discussion or consultation. This is immensely troubling.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the decision to put the DLC scenarios in their own section was a decision we as staff came to. Not just for the Wizzro article, but how to approach the other character articles as well. There are enough reasons for this. The main one because the DLC packs are entirely optional for purchase and are not mandatory, and it is only fair to let readers know the distinction between the regular scenarios and DLC scenarios without having to constantly repeat "In the Master Quest DLC pack,". While it is true that the new scenarios provide some insight to the backstories of some of the characters, we felt it would be the preferred for it to be in its own section for that reason. Also some of the new DLC scenarios have been contradictory to the original scenarios and statements made on official websites. In the end, they're bonus stories and nothing more than that.

Second, it wasn't my intention to purposely remove your additions, not entirely at least. I tried to keep them in, but I was admittingly having a difficult time separating the paragraphs and decided to bring back some of my original revisions. If you want to re-add your corrections, such as the Deku Tree on fire, go right ahead. Regarding "Wizzro's whereabouts", keep in mind that this wiki prefers that facts be cited. I played through that last scenario, but I guess I must've not been paying much attention then, because I must've missed the fact that she sealed him into his ring. But then I have to wonder if this contradicts with the timeline of the original scenarios. Either way, we prefer facts to be sourced. I can remove that mention otherwise.

Lastly, keep in mind that this is an open wiki. Changes to pages and their edits is a given. Your work did not go to waste, merely I had split it into its own section, so there is really no reason to feel so troubled or attacked over it. Your contribution is appreciated and it is still technically there, just cleaned up some. But please understand as this is a wiki, you cannot expect your edits to be left untouched. -The Goron Moron (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it's a wiki, believe me. What troubled me is that this was, a near-complete revert of the work I had done, with no discussion beside a mention of "we decided elsewhere we didn't like it". No thread was mentioned for why this work wasn't allowed, and other than the Master Quest decision, no reason given for what I had done wrong -- I was given no chance to say "this is why I feel this works better". What troubles me is that I was completely shut out of giving input to the decision. The evolution of a page through various edits is par for the course on a wiki, but large-scale reverts usually obligate some kind of explanation, to at least prevent wasted work in the future.

Since I still don't know where the discussion was held in order to give my input -- the storylink template that I created, and put up for discussion on the discussion center talk page as instructed, neatly solves the problem of "in the Master Quest DLC pack". No, it is not mandatory to play them -- but they were still created and published by the authors as official work. They are presented as a "behind the scenes", not as an "elseworlds". They don't modify the original story, a la playing OoS and OoA in a varying order. If they contradict pieces of the original scenarios, I feel that should be mentioned, but we already see that kind of minor plot hole all the time in these games; if they contradict statements from official websites, why are we giving preference to websites rather than the game itself? They may be considered "bonus" material, but I don't feel I need to inform the wiki of the existence of "games delivered incomplete what you need to buy DLC to finish" -- Challenge Mode itself was even a day-one free DLC pack in NA, and Cia, Volga, and Wizzro as playable characters were planned from the beginning as well. The scenarios are presented clearly as "pieces of the story", rather than contextless excuses to mess around, as with the Adventure Mode.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Arg. I know I'm kind of taking the revert personally, and in an effort to approach this from a calmer perspective: are there any major problems with this version of the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to step back and choose a less confrontational approach. We did indeed decide to split up the content that was included in the DLC, and for good reason. DLC content sometimes contradicts the main story, and there's several discrepancies between Cia's path and the actual story mode (for example, Cia battles Hyrule's forces and pushes them back to the castle in the first DLC scenario, and yet there is no mention of this occurring during the first scenario of the actual story). Next, DLC is optional and doesn't represent the completed game as it is sold. We wanted to make it clear of which content is present in the full retail game and which is not.

Given that this is our first encounter with DLC, we decided we'd need to set a precedent now in the event that future games incorporate it. I understand that you put a good deal of effort into working this content into the page, and it's highly appreciated. I'm sorry that you feel cheated here, but that was not our intention. As for your draft, I have no qualms with it. Perhaps someone else can give their opinion as well?User:Justin ZW/sig 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "optional" bit in regards to whether the details are separated -- for an analogy, Majora's Mask and Hyrule Historia are not parts of Ocarina of Time, and if you buy Ocarina of Time you aren't obligated to buy those others, and yet they inform the biography of the character. This seems like an issue of discriminating between the sources of the info, and while DLC is a separate form of that question, in other cases we've kept the convergent revelations in-line with the details given in the main playthrough, simply because it presents a clearer picture of the character within the wider continuity. I feel like if we're going to separate out DLC details on that basis (especially given that this DLC is released as something built into the game, and only unlocked upon purchase), then it would behoove use to separate out biographies between OoT and MM, TWW and PH, the Hyrule Historia, and so on.

On the other hand, if our goal is to make it clear that these details come from different releases and possibly different mindsets, perspectives on the character (which is a totally legitimate way to approach this, as the official perspective and presentation of each story/character has certainly evolved over the multi-decade history of the franchise!), rather than to interpret the whole shebang as one official, "approved" whole, we should be consistent. In other words -- While I would consider the main quest and the DLC to be much more "unified" in authorship and intent, being as they were produced simultaneously and only released separately as a commercial consideration, than stuff like the various "Eras" and their sequels, or their rehashes in the manga and Hyrule Historia, I could totally get behind providing a clearer delineation of a concept's evolution. Volvagia, for instance, certainly wasn't designed with Valoo in mind, and it's doubtful whether Valoo was originally designed to be his descendant or whether that was a happy coincidence for the writers of the Historia to make canon. Here's an example of a totally valid method to distinguish between sources and accurately inform the reader of the evolution of a story concept throughout a franchise's history, despite that concept being presented in-universe as "timeless, absolute, and immutable". I can absolutely get behind this, so long as the community consensus is that this is what we're actually trying to achieve.

As far as the first Hyrule Field mission, I think we may have some confusion -- unless I am very much mistaken, Cia's version of that battle begins with chasing Lana and the Eldin Cave Gorons, and ending up at Hyrule Field (as detailed in my write-up), with the Hyrulians only appearing at the end, leading into the original mission (in which the castle is attacked, Link and Impa go out to fight off the forces but encounter Dodongo and find the castle has been ransacked while they were away). In the original mission, we're told that Cia's forces attacked the castle, reason not given, while, as far as I understand, the DLC reveals that Cia and Wizzro were actually there to hunt down the fairies. I may be forgetting something (possibly if Link or Impa is defeated at some point? But irregular, temporary retreats happen all the time and are even glossed over in the main storylines, so I would consider this more a gameplay/story disconnect rather than a true, intentional contradiction in the plots), but I'm not sure this is a hard, un-explainable contradiction. I mean, hell, the totally-in-main-game-story facet of Zelda disguising herself as Sheik and following Link and Zelda as they waste months and lives searching for her is far more inexplicable than soldiers simply not mentioning that Wizzro and Volga in fact arrived chasing Gorons and "some forest-lady", and that doesn't have any way for us to ignore it at all. Off the top of my head, the only direct contradiction would be how Midna took on her imp form, and that one has several possible resolutions: (1) Cia's magic did it passively, as with bringing Wizzro to life, (2) Midna was merely mistaken about Cia's involvement, just as she was about Lana and Agitha being Cia's servants, because (3) we already know from the canon that it was Zant's fault. So if we allow as per the presentation that this shebang is set right before TP starts off, Cia shows up just as a Ganon-backed Zant makes his move, Midna recognizes that some kind of foreign magic is at play and blames the more visible outsider, Cia, then after the events of Hyrule Warriors returns to her own time and has her story play out as normal, eventually learning that it was Ganon who was truly behind Zant. (Presumably the travellers' memories fade, as in Doctor Who? It's pretty unclear how HW is supposed to be taped on to the existing canon.)KrytenKoro (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kryten, first of all, I'm going to tell you to please be patient and to calm down already. It takes us awhile to respond to talk pages. And honestly, I really do not appreciate the sheer text wall size of your posts and how much you're typing up without waiting for a response first. Please be patient and maybe try making your posts smaller. I get you want to put your thoughts down, but it takes us awhile to read.

I'm in complete agreement with Justin, so I'm not going to repeat myself on the points he already made. However the DLC Scenarios, the DLC costumes, the Master Quest map, are optional. Unlike the 1.3.0 update that came automatically, the DLC packs have to be purchased and downloaded separately, and are therefore completely optional in that people can ignore them entirely if they want to. I honestly do not see why this has to be made in such a big deal. Your contributions are still there, just moved into its own section that we've deemed more appropriate. Again, not just for Wizzro's article but for every other HW character article when we get around to it. The same would have happened if someone else had added the info. You're taking this whole thing personally.

Some things are discussed on the talk pages first, and sometimes they aren't. The staff holds regular meetings and discuss things often. Practically every single day. There have been plenty of organization efforts and decisions that have been done before without bringing them up to the entire wiki. Because we want to present the wiki in a way that makes sense and looks nice to our readers. And honestly, no one was really bothered by them before. Again I honestly feel you're turning this into a bigger deal than it needs to be.

Unfortunately I haven't even had time to read your draft yet because there is just, too, much, to respond to on this talk page. So I again ask you to please be patient and to calm down. Also the discussion of the contradictory nature of the DLC scenarios are getting a little off-topic and causing a lot of the bulk of this page. I suggest we focus on just the Wizzro article here. -The Goron Moron (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, hold on. I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me just quickly say that I apologize if I'm sounding too rough here. I do not mean to dismiss your points. I just want things to calm down a bit. -The Goron Moron (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think you're misunderstanding me. There's two things I was posting about, which are completely independent:

1. I'm upset about what happened, but not about the state of the page.
2. I disagree with the way HW DLC is currently separated from the main storyline, but I do not necessarily disagree with the concept or even how it was implemented on this page.

As far as why I use detail, it's to make my thought process clear, and to avoid the need for other commentators to strawman my position (not accusing you of this). I prefer it in others as well -- I'm willing to wait quite a long time for a response, as long as it is well-thought.

Also, if this needs to be moved to the discussion center or a user talk page, that's totally okay.

Okay, to clarify: I spent several hours writing this, making corrections, etc., in addition to reformatting the page. Moving my additions to a new section is fine, and a reason was given (though I'll address that later). However, I still have no idea why the changes I made to the main-story stuff, and to the design section, was unacceptable. This makes my work a waste of time -- I accomplished nothing, and learned nothing. Taking more of my own time to review the changes, I can see that I had made a handful of typos -- so far so good. I can see where the Master Quest stuff was stripped out, okay. But if I don't know why all the other changes were made, there's nothing to keep me from mistakenly making them again -- and having an admin revert it again, just as done here. I'm sorry I came across confrontational so far -- that's sincerely not my intent. I'm not trying to blame people, I want to know what I need to do different so I'm not throwing time down the drain.

For HW DLC, as I tried to outline earlier -- we have a ton of other situations where we have plot for one event, one character coming from multiple "publications", written by different authors several years apart and changing their original interpretation. We cover completely optional sidequests as canon. We even have much bigger instances of outright inexplicable contradictions that aren't resolvable with "they just decided not to mention it or were mistaken. Something that is, essentially "an optional sidequest what is not playable the first few weeks after the game is released and you have to pay money to unlock" seems to me to be a strange place to be the sole time we decide to make a distinction -- if we want to start distinguishing this kind of stuff, it seems like it would be a major shift in how we handle stuff, if we do it coherently. As with the TFwiki example I presented, I am so totally okay with this shift -- I'm just interested in discussing it, and I still haven't found another appropriate place to discuss it.

As a sidenote -- in regards to staff decisions, I totally agree that there are some issues where the community needs to be brought together to discuss something in real time, to come to a coherent decision on the issue. I've instituted this on my other wikis. But, as with the original thing which flummoxed me, it seems that this is, if not totally counterproductive, at least very inefficient in an easily fixable way if these discussions aren't publicized, so that the editors know what they should be doing before they've had hours of work thrown away for unintentionally disobeying a shadow mandate. And I may be completely ignorant here -- are there minutes posted anywhere? I can't find them, but then, I'm not part of the "in-group", so I may just not have the tribal knowledge yet. Then there's the additional consideration that, well, even if you form community consensus, it's always gonna be open to change. I'm not conceited enough to think that I'm going to sway that, or even that anyone agrees with me on the DLC or storylink questions, but surely there's some worth in taking my time to outline my own view, rather than just being quiet and waiting to be told what to submit?

Finally...as regards the storylink issue, I must admit that I came off a little argumentative when responding on that. In my defense, it was just the slightest bit galling to be told that I should be bringing the templates up in the discussion center, then have them denied for use by a...well, closed room decision, with no explanation of why they didn't work, no advice on how to salvage them, and no response to my quite prompt response that I was working to address the initial concerns and was looking for input. That was...very frustrating.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just quickly respond to a couple of things. What happened with the main-story section was when I was working to move the DLC info into its own section, I was admittingly having a bit of a difficult time in separating and cleaning it up. And seeing that the revision still had my paragraphs, what I ultimately did was compose the edit in word pad by bringing back my earlier paragraphs and including a few cited sources that were deleted in the then-newer revision which I felt were still necessary. I probably missed a few corrections while doing the separation, so I take the blame for that. The design notes, some of them felt a little redundant and made the trivia a little long. Trivia regarding a character's name and potential design influence really only has to be straight to the point. In general that's how it is with most trivia.

So yeah, I'm to blame here in that I missed on some corrections. To compensate, I can go back and readd some details I had missed earlier. Unless you'd still prefer us to look at the draft.

Regarding characters being in multiple "publications" - we already do that. Characters have their appearances split by game. Even if you were to look at Link's article it's the exact same deal, except that his page is a little more complex as it also takes Hyrule Historia's timeline into account by sorting. But characters already have their game appearances split by game, rather than all of it being in one biography. It has always been that way. So it's kind of really no different to what's been done with Wizzro's page. Also, none of the games have had DLC to date before - HW has been the first game in the Zelda series to introduce such a thing (not including Mario Kart 8 or Smash). It may not be explored in future games, but it's something to consider about when deciding how to organize these pages. DLC is still a special case, because unlike all of those sidequests in the actual games, those sidequests are actually there without having to pay and download the additional content. But maybe Justin can explain this better than I. Ultimately, we just wanted a way to organize the DLC scenario stuff while making a clear distinction. Some people may even choose to not consider Cia's Tale to be canon (there's certainly been a lot of disappointment over them), even though HW itself is not a canon game. Which is another thing to consider here. HW is not canon.

That's really all I can comment on. Others might be able to explain other things better than I could. -The Goron Moron (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unclear about the Historia thing -- we include details given by Twilight Princess in Majora's Mask section. We do stuff like that all over the place. The relationship between Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask is, if anything, a much more distinct version of Legend Mode and its DLC ("you don't have to play it together, it's a separate purchase, it's released on different dates, etc.") If we want to split that stuff, I am on board for that, but I don't understand why this is the only place we're doing that.KrytenKoro (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, compromise. Some details from the DLC scenarios (WITH sources cited) can be mentioned in passing in the main biography body. Such as that the DLC scenarios gives implication that Cia did turn Midna into an imp shortly after the opening of the gates. (Maybe not best example here, but I'm tired and can't think of better examples right now.) But full details on the DLC scenarios themselves and their events, go into the dedicated sub-section. That's something I've considered before. That fine? -The Goron Moron (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Is he a Wizzrobe?

His name suggests he is one, but his race is not listed. User:Parker Green, 5:16 PM (EDT), 3/26/2022.

I believe it was a cursed ring reborn as a "sorcerer"; it never explicitly states what race it is, and we'd need a citation to add that into the infobox. At the very least, the Trivia section mentions that its name and appearance are based on Wizzrobes. – Ceiling Master (talk · contributions)

HIS name and appearance! He might be evil, but have some respect! Sorry about that. I'm just saying, in all likelihood, his physical form is probably at least that of a wizzrobe. Even if he was originally an inanimate object.User:Parker Green 6:09 PM (EDT), 3/26/2022.

I used "it" because that's the pronoun I saw in the citations. If it uses different pronouns in-game, we should get that documented.

And not to sound brusque, but "probably" isn't good enough; like I said, we'd need a citation. If one of the HW games or guides describes Wizzro as an actual Wizzrobe, then we've got something. Otherwise, we leave the infobox parameter blank. – Ceiling Master (talk · contributions)